A Family of Art

 When I started this post, I was sure I was just writing about one artist who had an artistic father. I have a bit of a weakness for parent-child artistic duos (there are a surprising amounts, or maybe it isn't that surprising?) so was delighted to find one of my favourite Victorian pet portraitists had a son who painted actual people.  Turns out, that was only the tip of the iceberg. Let's start with how I got dragged in to this...

The Lonely Life (1899) Hugh Goldwin Rivière

The above picture appeared at the Royal Academy in 1899 with the following quote from Christina Rossetti: 'I, a Princess, King descended, decked with jewels, gilded, drest, Would rather be a peasant with her baby at her breast, For all I shine so like the sun, and am purple like the West.' This is the opening stanza of 'A Royal Princess' and if I was unkind I would summarise it as 'ouch, my diamond shoes are pinching!' but it is a thoughtful poem about the isolation of station (in the same vein see The Gilded Cage (1901-2) by Evelyn de Morgan and "What a comforting thing to know" from 1976's The Slipper and the Rose).  It was the Christina Rossetti quote that dragged in me, as I am always on the lookout for Pre-Raphaelite adjacent works and artists, but was delighted to find that Hugh is the son of Briton Riviere, who painted this...

Sympathy (1877) Briton Rivière

Briton Rivière is one of the greatest animal painters of the nineteenth century and after trying out various other subjects, settled on dogs as his speciality.  The above image has graced many a jigsaw from the 1970s and I think people are undoubtedly familiar with his work, if not the man himself.  However, when researching Hugh, I was astonished that Briton was not his only artistic relative.  We also have his mother, Mary Alice Dobell...

Young Woman, Presumed to be Mary Alice Dobell (c,1860s) Briton Rivière

I'm guessing Mary met Briton through artistic circles as she was also a practising artist.  Also, the above image makes me put Briton in my 'Pre-Raphaelite adjacent' pile too. Hugh's grandfather William Rivière was the drawing master at Cheltenham College and his Great Uncle Henry, Great Grandfather Daniel and Great Aunt Fanny Rivière all were artists, especially in miniatures. That's a lot of art all in one family. Also, I must question the repeated use of the phrase 'of Huguenot descent' which is applied especially to Briton (because he has the most French-ish name, I'm guessing).  It is something his peers seemed to do and we continue but why? Was it really that sexy to be a French Protestant (well obviously) or was it the 'elevated crafts people' connotations? As far as I can see, Hugh's Great Great Great Great Grandfather Daniel De La Rivière was probably the French immigrant as his wife Rebecca is referred in records as 'Madame' in around 1750. Anyway, I find people who hang great store in their ancestry a little disconcerting and so I always respond with my Peruvian/Māori heritage (both of which are in my family tree). Kia ora, have a marmalade sandwich. I digress.

The reason my interest in Hugh Rivière was that a cursory search of the Royal Academy catalogues showed that he redefined prolific. A quick glance gave me works from 1893-1938, which is very impressive and although he made his money through portraits, he also produced other interesting work. I will start at the beginning with Briton (1840-1920) who married Mary Alice (1844-1931) in Cheltenham in 1867.  As I said above, Briton's father was art master and Briton attended, possibly meeting local artist Mary there. The couple moved to Addison Road in Kensington (not far from Leighton House for context) with three servants, so you know how wealthy we are to start with. Hugh was their first born, followed by Millicent (1870-1956), Clive (1873-1929), Philip (1874-1955), Evelyn (1876-1945), Theodora (1878-1936) and finally Bernard (1880-1953). By 1881, the Rivière family were living at 82 Finchley Road, which feels less grand but it might be all the modern buildings that have appeared.  Possibly they wanted to live closer to a petrol station and a Ladbrokes.

On 5th March 1889, Hugh entered the Royal Academy school aged 20, and debuted at the RA exhibition in 1893 with Mrs Henry Craik, hanging alongside Kate Perugini, John Everett Millais and John Singer Sargent.  As you will see, 1893 was an unusual year with only one painting in the exhibition, as the following year, Hugh returned with three pictures - The Argonauts and the Sirens (exhibited with an accompanying poem), Mrs Henry Colgate, Dorothy and Olive and Vivien and Grey, Children of George Porter Wornum.  I love seeing what became of the subject who are obviously from privileged backgrounds. Grey Wornum, for example, ended up a CBE and has his own Wikipedia entry. Mrs Henry Colgate, or Ethel Dobell Jolly Colgate was a friend and cousin of Hugh's.

At this point, I would like to give a debt of gratitude to Archive.org for having the Royal Academy picture supplements so that I can show you some of Hugh's works and I think by sheer numbers of entries, he tended to have something in there.  If the illustration is in black and white, that's where it's from. In 1895, his picture Sanctuary caused a bit of a storm, but not for the right reasons.  With shades of the criticism of Millais's Holy Family, the Hampstead News described the figures thus - 'one woman in particular is an anatomical monstrosity ... Whence did Mr Riviere obtain his model? ... the Academy is scarcely the place to exhibit such strange freaks.' Rude.

Undeterred by this harsh criticism, Hugh was back in 1896, this time with two portraits - Eustace, son of Walter Bourke and Miss Freda Langdon-Davies.  One of these two is easy - Freda married Hugh in 1897 so this might have acted as their engagement painting, which is lovely.  Eustace is a bit trickier as I suspect he is the son of  the 8th Earl of Mayo and therefore the same Eustace Bourke who died in Flanders in 1915.

Lady Kelvin (1896)

1897 was not only the year that Hugh and Freda got married, but also the year he had three portraits in the RA, including a presentation portrait.  If anyone can give me a proper explanation of that term, I'd be grateful but I'm guessing it's a special portrait done to be presented to the sitter or to an institution connected to the sitter?  Anyway, his presentation portrait of Lady Kelvin was much praised and now lives in the Hunterian at the University of Glasgow.  He also had portraits of the Rev. Canon Ainger, Master of the Temple (which made it to the RA pictorial booklet) and Wenefryde Tollemache Scott.  Miss Scott (1889-1975) was only a child when the picture was done but she now has her own Wikipedia entry, albeit mainly for being a Countess.

Alderman John Gulson (1898)

Despite having three pictures in the RA again in 1898 (a picture entitled The Lotus Land, a portrait of his father and a portrait of Lady Heygate) none of them seem to have made waves in the newspapers, unlike his portrait of Alderman Gulson, which had been commissioned for Coventry and now resides in their art gallery.

John Percival, Bishop of Hereford (1899)

Whilst he had another three pictures in the RA in 1899, the portraits of Mrs Emmett Barlow and the Bishop of Hereford did not get a look-in because everyone wanted to know about The Lonely Life. The Lady's Pictorial were enraptured and hoped this meant Hugh would be doing more lovely pictures rather than his portraits. I would answer on Hugh's behalf and say 'Yes, but there is more money in portraits,' even though he did sell The Lonely Life for £367/10s which is around £30K in today's money. He even showed The Lotus Land again, which drew more attention this time probably because of The Lonely Life (being also from a poem, this time Tennyson).

Sir Squire Bancroft (1900)

At the turn of the century, Hugh was back at the RA with another 3 pictures - In the Golden Days, A F Walter Esq and Sir Squire Bancroft. It was the last of these, a portrait of a popular actor, which got all the attention and it is easy to see why.  It is such a 'living' portrait (as The Sketch announced) and unsurprisingly now lives in the National Portrait Gallery. This also wasn't the last portrait Hugh would do of an actor.

The Garden of Eden (1901)

In 1901, Hugh had no less than 4 pictures in the RA, three of which were portraits (Thomas Graham Jackson RA, Mrs Lionel Dugdale and Henry Arthur Jones) and another piece of romantic fancy, The Garden of Eden. While the portraits were admired, people once more fell for Hugh's other work - 'all that there is of poetry in a simple love story is expressed in the picture,' gushed the Echo.

At Iffley (1902)

We are back down to three pictures in 1902, one of which was the presentation portrait of the academic Reginald Bosworth Smith (who retired from Harrow in 1901, so possibly the portrait was to mark that) and William Fearon, the priest-headmaster of Winchester College. Hugh's painting At Iffley showing the rowing team from Oxford, was shown in the Graphic and it was described as 'vivid' but not beautiful  by the St James Gazzette. A far more flattering review was given to the portrait of his wife, shown at the New Gallery in December, which the Lady's Pictorial described as a portrait 'to live with and grow fond of.'

1903 brought another batch of portraits including the above of Alex Kennedy, from University College, London. Also present was a portrait of Lady Walpole and a portrait of sisters Freda, Sibyl, Beachie and Olive, daughters of C. Lang-Davies.  This was, of course, a picture of Hugh's wife and her sisters Sibyl (1874-1959), Beatrice (1880-1973) and Olive (1885-1970).  As Beachie got married in 1904 (with Olive following in 1905), I'm guessing this might have been the impetus to have the sisters together once more, although the Liverpool Mercury commented that the portraits in the exhibition were all very nice but of limited interest unless you were part of the family. We'll come back to that point...

It's not a criticism of Hugh, but after a while, all these old white blokes start looking the same and my goodness, didn't the RA love them as 1904 brought us not only H W Worsley Taylor MP (which the Globe described as having 'ample sterling power') but also Rev Charles Silvester Horne (another MP), which was another presentation portrait. He also had a portrait of Lady Monk-Bretton, who I'm guessing was Ruth  Dodson.  Interestingly, it was the golden wedding anniversary portrait he did of Mr and Mrs John Morris of Capel, Dover that got the press coverage, as it was presented at a lavish party at the Hotel Metropole. Interestingly, his most exciting, non-bloke in a chair painting did not reach the RA...

A Libation to Olympus (1904)

This glorious piece was shown at the New Gallery, which was called the picture of the exhibition by The Times.  Given the popularity of his non-portraits, I find it interesting that he took this very well-received and obviously well-executed work to the New Gallery, where it received less attention than had it been at the RA but was maybe a bigger fish in the smaller pond.

Oh look, it's the Archbishop of Canterbury and yet another old white bloke in a chair. This one was the hit of the 1905 RA and another presentation portrait. The only other picture he did this RA was a portrait of Lady Critchett but obviously it was the Archbishop that made the booklet. He was all about the church in 1905, painting two portraits of the Bishop of Ripon, one in his robes and one in evening dress.  The one for the swimsuit round was obviously missed...

William Boyd Carpenter, Bishop of Ripon (1905)

The portrait of the Bishop of Ripon was the hit of the RA in 1906, where it was displayed alongside a portrait of Freda, Mrs Rivière, and an intriguing piece called Among the Aegeon Isles which was exhibited with lines from Shelley's 'Ode to the West Wind'.  Over at the New Gallery, Hugh also had a hit with this picture...

Dame Genevieve Ward (1906)

Genevieve Ward was an American soprano and technically not a Dame, but was made an honorary Dame Commander of the British Empire in 1921.  She began as a singer, but retired due to vocal difficulties, becoming a dramatic actress instead, hence why this painting is now owned by the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. 1906 was also a brilliant year for the Rivière family as Hugh and Freda welcomed their first daughter Nancy who I'm sure I read somewhere also became an artist but as her name is 'Nancy Briton Rivière' searching for her is damn near impossible as all you find is her grandfather.

1907 brought another three paintings to the RA, including this painting of the Countess of Leitrim in brown velvet. The newspapers reported that the Countess arrived at the private view, determined to see her portrait and it was destined to be displayed in the castle in Donegal.  The Irish Times particularly was very impressed.

Sir Godfrey Charles Morgan, Lord Lieutenant of Monmouth (1907)

There was a fair amount of excitement in the press about a portrait of Sir Godfrey Morgan, which was presented to him with a silver cup at the Volunteer Drill Hall in Newport in recognition of his service to Monmouthshire. Hugh's portrait of Lord Winterstoke, painted the same year, was presented to the people of Bristol and now hangs in the Art Gallery.

Good God, and I only at 1907?! On to 1908!

Astonishingly, only 2 portraits in the 1908 RA, but then the arrival of their second child, Raymond Briton Rivière, might have disturbed the household.  Raymond grew up to be an artist, obviously, and I found a few mentions of him in books on art in the 1960s and 70s.  In Justine Glass's 1969 book They Foresaw the Future, she writes that Raymond, a sculptor, said that a death in the family was always foretold by the appearance of a bat in full daylight. Smashing.

Lady Bullough (1909)

1909 brought two more portraits to the RA - Mrs George Bancroft, which made the booklet and a presentation portrait of The Lord Winterstoke.  There was also an interesting piece in the Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette which caught my eye, as a friend of Hugh's reported that the artist believed in 'the beauty of old age when illuminated with the charm of noble character.' The writer also commented that 'silly women who fight against the inevitable with dyes and powder' should look at how beautiful his subjects are and take note. Part of me is in agreement with this statement, never more pertinant than right now, but also I want to know what this powder is and where I can get some.

Lord Bullough (1910)

1910 brought the closure of the New Gallery, which was noted in the newspapers as a blow to Hugh.  This feels a bit cheeky as I have never researched anyone so damn prolific at the RA and I don't think he had any trouble getting his pictures out.  He had two in the RA this year; last year's portrait of Lady Bullough (he painted one of Lord Bullough in 1910 so you get a matching pair) and a portrait of the actor Frank Benson. Again the newspapers talk about the feeling behind the portraits, with particular emphasis on the one of Benson. 

 

Frank Benson (1910)

Possibly the fame of the sitter made people feel more connected to the portrait, although he shows Benson not in a costume, but in his OUAC blazer and shorts.  This caused some consternation in the press, especially when you compare it with something like John Collier's 1903 portrait of fellow actor Lewis Waller in his famous role (and elaborate costume) of Monsieur Beaucaire. Some of the critics admired the feeling behind it and the acknowledgement of the man rather than the actor.

Sir Adolphus Ward, Master (1911)

1911 census showed the family not in their famous St John's Wood home (that had appeared in newspaper articles and where he was listed in the Royal Academy catalogues) but at Belle Vue in Studland, Dorset.  At the RA that year, he showed 2 presentation portraits (Henry Griffiths, Senior Bencher of Gray's Inn, and Edmond G A Holmes, Chief Inspector of Elementary Schools) and a portrait of Mrs Compton Roberts (possibly the widow of the MP rather than one of her daughters-in-laws, due to his preference for an older woman). The same year, Cheltenham Art Gallery purchased A Libation to Olympus for £160.

Mrs Charles F Lees (Dame Sarah Lees) (1912)

1912 was an interesting year.  Three portraits in the RA, including the above which is of Sarah Lees, the first female mayor of Oldham from 1910-11 (hence the portrait).  The other picture I want to highlight from 1912 is this one...

Jean Sterling Mackinlay (1912)

In yet another of his theatrical portraits, Hugh shows the versatility of actress and singer Jean Sterling Mackinlay in this triple portrait. On the left we have the Piper of Dundee, the centre is coupled with lines from A E Housman's 'A Shropshire Lad' and the right-hand side is accompanied by a traditional song 'The Cuckoo'. The National Portrait Gallery have a number of Bassano portraits of her from around the same time and they look so dull in comparison to the movement and expression of Hugh's portrait.

William Archibald Spooner (1913)

In 1913 there was substantial press coverage of the death of Robert Ellett, a 70 year old solicitor from Gloucestershire who had been so popular that a subscription had been raised for Hugh to paint his portrait but no sittings had taken place.  I particularly like the portrait Hugh painted of William Archibald Spooner, Warden of New College and whom we get the term 'spoonerism' from. At the RA, Hugh had two portraits, one of the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and another of Robert Fellowes on horseback which the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News felt confident it was a good likeness (of both man and horse, presumably). Again, there are many platitudes of what a great future Hugh was to have in portraiture, but after 20 years of RA exhibiting, there was still a sense that he was overshadowed by his father.

Handley Moule, Bishop of Durham (1914)

In 1914, the artist Sir Hubert Herkomer died, and his funeral was very well attended from the art world.  Hugh got a special mention as one of the mourners, which surprised me (no offence, Hugh) but it speaks to how famous he was at that point. The RA exhibition that year brought another three portraits including two presentation portraits, one of which is the above Bishop of Durham.

Edward Adrian Wilson (1915)

The 1915 RA is an odd one as it is the first after the outbreak of the First World War.  Looking through the artists listed, suddenly Hugh was surrounded by women, which was obviously a great thing but not for a great reason.  That year he exhibited two portraits, one of David Howard, but more notably a life-size portrait of Edward Adrian Wilson, the polar explorer who had perished with Captain Scott in 1912. At the exhibition of the Society of Portrait Painters, Hugh exhibited a portrait of Rear Admiral Sir David Beatty in an exhibition that seemed packed with military types (for obvious reasons).

Okay, I think I still have another twenty years if this and so I'm going to pick up speed a little or we'll still be here at Christmas.  In 1916, he had three more RA portraits - Hugh Fraser, Miss Eva Barry Pain and Emile Cammaerts, the Belgian playwright and poet. He also provided illustrations for Songs of the Specials by E W Fordham. Hugh also donated pictures to the Red Cross selling exhibitions, including two Leighton drawings.

In 1917, Genevieve Ward took to the stage again and the portrait of her by Hugh gained fresh admiration. Another three portraits graced the RA but I notice in the reviews the same terms are used - interesting, admirable - and in the West of England exhibition, his portrait of Lady Wills hung alongside a painting called A Mill on the Somme. I think I might see a problem...

At the time of the 1918 RA, the war was still raging and Hugh had his customary three portraits in the exhibition.  The only one that merited any notice in the newspaper was his portrait of Thomas Holmes, 'friend of ex-prisoners' and active in penal reform, which had been completed shortly before Holmes's death.  There was also some concern for one of Hugh's portraits which was in Germany and it was felt that it would never be seen in England again.

Lady Betty Trafford

In 1919, Hugh had two portraits in the RA (Lady Betty Trafford and Colonel E W Greg) but didn't garner much notice in the newspaper.  A portrait he exhibited in Liverpool was criticised for being 'artificially posed' which is the first negative note I read about his portraits.

In April of 1920, Briton Riviere died.  I wondered if that was the reason that Hugh only exhibited one painting at the RA, a portrait of Mr and Mrs Eardley Holland - he was a surgeon and his wife was Dorothy Colgate, who appeared in a portrait by her cousin in 1894.

In 1921 Hugh had absolutely no paintings in the RA and there was a riot! Okay, maybe not a riot but in a particularly hysterical article, the Daily Chronicle wrote 'ACADEMY REJECTS WORKS BY FAMOUS ARTISTS - HON JOHN COLLIER AND HUGH RIVIERE UNHUNG - VICTIMS INTERVIEWED.' Yes, Victims! While some of the artists were insulted by this ludicrous move, Hugh remained stoical - 'it must be remembered there are 900 fewer works exhibited this year...being so, the only possible way for the new blood to be admitted is that painters of the traditional school who are not members of the Academy [and therefore guaranteed a spot] shall be excluded.' He went on to comment that he doubted that any of the established yet excluded painters were going to starve because, like himself, they had patrons.  Hugh certainly wasn't short of work and presented a portrait to Sir Francis Hyett, Chairman of Gloucester County Council.  I suppose that was the difference between artists like Hugh and, for example, Blair Leighton who was also excluded - if someone needs honouring, you got them a portrait, not a painting of winsome Georgian ladies.

Interestingly, Hugh was back at the RA in 1922 with a portrait of Mr and Mrs Grant Watson, which received no comment at all.  In 1923, Hugh exhibited a portrait of the Marchesa Malacrida, the very exciting writer who died in a magnificently tragic manner in the 1930s (She rolled her car at high speed. Her spaniel survived).  There was absolutely nothing in the newspapers about this portrait, nor can I find it, so I think my Hugh-Bubble has finally burst. For the rest of the 1920s, he only really received mention when the sitters for his portraits died, for example Squire Bancroft or Genevieve Ward.

Jimmie (1935)

Things didn't change in the 1930s.  Hugh worked regularly and appeared in the newspapers when some chap was honoured with his portrait. I especially liked Jimmie from 1935 which Hugh kept hold of until 1953 when he gave it to the art gallery in Cheltenham. I wondered if she was a family member, but I can't see any likely candidates (for example Raymond married Monica). Thus, finally, Hugh seems to have retired. Hugh continued to exhibit with the Royal Academy until 1938, when he went out on his tradition three paintings - a portrait of his son, a portrait of Katherine, the daughter of Emile Cammaerts who he had painted in 1916, and a portrait of Mrs Maurice Chesterton, the wife of an architect of the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre with Elizabeth Scott. In 1939, Hugh and Freda, now 69 and 72, are living in Uckfield in East Sussex, moving to Kew before his death in January 1956, leaving £37,000.  There was not a scrap of an obituary in the newspapers.

So, what is the problem with Hugh Goldwin Riviere? Why is he not massively famous? Why do the RA spell his name wrong (rude)? I think the key lies in what the Liverpool Mercury said - portraits are great if you know the people involved.  If not, you are struggling. Think about your favourite portrait...it tends to be either something that is exceptional, like the Singer Sargent one of Ellen Terry or you really feel you know the person, like Gluck's portrait of Georgie (definitely my favourite of her work). Not to be rude to Hugh, but looking through the Art UK collection of his work, not much stands out among the sea of old gray-haired blokes, mostly sat down. These are undoubtedly important blokes, probably very well-beloved blokes but a century or more down the line, they are just one mass because they are removed from their context and contemporaries. I think you can see this happen within this lifetime, hence no obituary. What is also intresting is that we haven't swooped in on Hugh for his non-portraiture because The Lonely Life is marvellous.  Maybe that time is yet to come.

I'm going for a lie down now...